Democracy requires simple, clear elections and an active citizenry: we need to do better on both counts.
Six years ago, the very structure of our country was put to a test that we passed, truth be told, simply because on a large scale, the American people are so politically disconnected that we have a hard time agreeing as a reasonable majority on anything. The beauty of our system is that, in spite of any problems, there is a nine-person body that can decide things like the highly contested 2000 election. I believe, in order to better maintain democracy, we should reexamine how we conduct our largest and most important elections so that the voice of the people is truly known and heard.
Election and voting reform are a constant issue in one way or another. Whether it is electronic voting machines or accusations of voter fraud, it’s always something in terms of how we operate our democratic machinery. At present, our national elections experience a slew of problems, especially presidential elections.
First, our current presidential election structure calls for voting in each state to be for a group of electors equal in number to the total number of Congress members representing that state – with three for Washington D.C. – and those electors are the ones who really cast the deciding votes. With different states having different laws and methods for voting – as one example, most states require presidential electors to vote according to the state’s popular vote, but not all of them – the way in which each state apportions the electors is highly inconsistent. This asinine and indirect system – the Electoral College – was devised to protect American voters from themselves in a time when they still needed it, but we live in a completely different world today. We may still need to be protected in some ways, but it’s hard not to know nowadays what a vote for president means. Legislation has circulated that would have states give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but it would be far simpler to simply get rid of the Electoral College altogether and institute a straight popular vote for the presidency.
Second, the case for a simple, federally standardized and fail-safe voting method, brought to the forefront in 2000, has been reinforced lately by Mexico’s hotly contested presidential election. Conservative Felipe Calder''n won by 0.58 percent over leftist Andr'©s Manuel L''pez Obrador, but L''pez Obrador alleges massive fraud in the election. Considering Mexico is a country of 107 million with a history of corruption among public servants, it’s not all that impossible that what L''pez Obrador has said is true. How can we ensure the validity of such an election' And why do we think that it is a good idea to delegate to a court a decision that is supposed to be made by the people' A better, more accurate voting system would help ensure that democratic decisions are not made by the judiciary, but by voters. Organizations such as FairVote and Americans for Voting Reform have detailed proposals on their Web sites for new voting systems that could help to eliminate the problem of voting irregularities.
Finally, and I know we’ve been trying unsuccessfully to do it for years, but our voter turnout and our all-around civic sense needs to be addressed, especially among minorities, young people and lower-income levels. According to the Census Bureau, 64 percent of voting-age citizens went to the polls in 2004, but that’s the overall average. Turnout percentages in various categories were higher for the elderly, white, wealthy, educated and employed citizens while significantly lower numbers were recorded for other groups. In the interest of trying to be fairer in our elections and more representative in our government, it is essential that we reverse the trend of low and declining turnout so that the true voice of America is heard.
Our elitist voting record, combined with outdated voting institutions and inconsistent methodology, has had ramifications recent and historical about which we can only guess. Multiple times in our history, the winner of the popular vote has not become president, with the election in 2000 being just one stark example. No one knows what life would be like in another universe where things happened differently, but in terms of our future, there is no better time than the present to institute serious election and voting reform. Democracy requires simple, clear elections and an active citizenry: we need to do better on both counts.
Christopher McGeady is a sophomore in the College of Arts & Science.
